April 30, 2017

Recognizing when democracy deteriorates
into oligarchy, or rule
by the few, is an important skill for defending democracy. Oligarchies are
not always dominated by a small group of families; sometimes they simply
benefit the same small social sector, such as the super wealthy
or a small gendered racial or ethnic group. Persistent wealth or racial and
ethnic inequality may be a warning sign of oligarchic rule.

Asking about oligarchy is very
important in democratic systems where elections are central, since elected
representatives are elites and often have been able to manage policy
development to serve their narrow interests. So the border between democracy
and oligarchy may be surprisingly easy to cross not just for small
organizations but for large ones as well.

Many indigenous communities have
not traditionally used electoral practices to choose leaders, instead preferring
selection by consensus
or through various careful vetting practices to ensure leaders advocate for the
common interest. In the views
of some, this is because electoral systems themselves are a form of
oligarchy, centralizing power in the hands of the few.

The question of oligarchy is also important
in organizations where the founding members were not fully committed to
democracy, or the rule
by all. Many nation-states were founded by wealthy merchants and their
land-owning allies in struggles with queens and kings, aristocrats and church
leaders, colonial governments and neighboring nations, so many of their
founders compromised democracy with other interests.

One quantitative study from
2014 compared the impacts on national policy in the United States of ordinary
citizens and elite groups, such as business elites. The study found that economic
elites consistently had a determining impact for over 20 years on more than 1,500
different policy issues. This suggests that those who see the United States as
a democracy may be confusing
oligarchy with democracy. Similar problems may be found in those electoral democracies where a small part of the general population, such as property owners or the wealthiest 1% or 10%, has consistently benefited most from government policies and practices.

There are many strategies to defend
democracy from attempts by small groups to impose their interests on the entire
organization. Aristotle
suggested one very long-established method: draw lots to select
representatives, rather than use elections. This view requires that all
citizens be prepared to hold office, and rejects the commonplace view in some circles that
only experts are qualified to rule. It also requires that all citizens be educated
sufficiently to prepare them to govern their own affairs, rather than leaving
government to small social minorities. By decentralizing the right to rule the
people, this practice certainly democratizes governance.

Another effective strategy for
combating oligarchy is the assembly: large
gatherings where not only decisions are made but also policies are drafted together.
By allowing everybody into the policy development process, those with narrow interests
may be challenged before they can restrict policies to those that benefit their
narrow interests. Instead, discussions will encompass a wider range of ideas. And policies will emerge that benefit all.

Assemblies
are widely used in rural communities and indigenous nations that have
proved impervious to the influence of European models of democracy, and even at
global scales. Though this practice is not well-known among urban residents in
democratic nations, it still may be useful for rejecting oligarchy.

There are many other practices that
prevent narrow interests from dominating democratic bodies. Which ones do you
practice?